Still a Work in Progress: Welcome to the Community Forum!

I have more questions because I remain confused. Jello said that threads can have "house rules." If that's the case, why can't that be the policy? Why set a policy and then say any individual thread is free to override the policy? There is a clear-cut policy of banned words. I cannot start a thread with my own house rules that allows some of the banned words.

Also, is there a book or movie coming out soon with major spoilers that necessitated this? Because I don't want to miss out!

Amazing.

 

I'd rather have a set of default rules and include the possibility of having special spoilers guidelines like the Downright Boring, I mean, Downton Abbey thread has. Clearly stated in the thread's title.

And this no major change and hasn't been caused by anything in special. There's always been a spoiler policy in effect.. well, actually three different policies in JCC, SF&F and Amph. We're just ironing out the different policies of the merged forum, and thought posting the spoiler policy in advance would be useful, if only to see everyone's reaction to it. Maybe it was a mistake to post it as a separate thread. I guess it's giving people flashbacks of the "JCC REFORM AND STOMPING OF POSTING HABITS" threads of the past. It's not like that, at all. It's just an attempt to fuse and streamline the existing spoilers policies and make them clearer and easier to understand for everyone. And it looks like we failed at that. Ah well.

As always, feedback is appreciated. Honestly. Expect updates when I'm not hungover.

 

WE NEED A POLICY ™

 

Sorry, Kris, but I totally disagree with you on that. Maybe this thread wasn't our brightest moment but yes, we do need a spoiler policy and yes, it needs to be enforced. Take my word for it: I've been a mod for three years now, and been spoiled or not knowing whether spoilers could be posted has been the number one reason for angry or confused PMs from users, bar none.

 

You could have just said, "put "spoilers" in the title if the thread contains spoilers, and don't post spoilers in threads without "spoilers" in the title," which I thought, has been the policy all along. If a few people have not abided by this, again, why not deal with the few people, instead of constructing a policy that only makes sense to the people who constructed it?

 

The issue, I think, is more spoilers posted outside of spoiler threads - say, for example, I post an un-spoiler tagged detail about... I dunno, Thor 2 in the comic book thread the day after I see it because I'm a huge ****ing nerd. IMO, there should be a well-codified way of dealing with that situation.

 

Yeah... PMing you and saying, "stop posting spoilers, ***hole," probably would have worked.

 

And then you might be getting a "it's not a spoiler, duh, welcome to the Internet, grow up" reply. Because that's what happens.

 

And what happens after that?

 

Not to mention different people have different standards for what constitutes an acceptable length of time. For some, it's next day, for others, it's two months. Again: codification helps prevent these issues, and while I'm not completely sold on the specific lengths of times in this iteration of this policy, I think it's a step in the right direction. To say nothing of increasing moderator action transparency, which I'm always a big fan of.

 

So... to clarify... everything that is released, must be discussed in a separate spoiler thread for the specified amount of time, unless the thread is marked "spoilers." If the thread is marked "spoilers," you can discuss the... whatever anytime you want? As B asked, is this going to lead to two threads for, pretty much, everything that is released, ever?

 

You mean what's been happening so far in JCC?

Well, usually the user either mopes or complains to the mod. In that case the mod checks the JCC rules; this thread says the standard JC rules apply to the forum but, hey, said rules are outdated and refer only to Star Wars spoilers. The mod can decide to apply the rules by analogy (and thus apply some severe banning, because the rules were meant to apply to spoilers about the prequels, to some user that wasn't aware he was doing anything wrong), to ignore the complaint (and telling the guy that had the LOST finale ruined for him "tough luck dude"), or to just delete the spoiler (arbitrarily editing a post that wasn't doing anything against the rules and probably being labeled a fascist -happened to me the first time).

So you can basically say "okay, by default it will be considered a spoiler if the media has been released X days ago" and thus everyone is on equal footing, or you can say "peace bro" and just keep doing what we've been doing so far: feeling that you're being unfair to someone no matter the option you've chosen.

I mean, maybe what we posted wasn't that great, no contest here, but I'm going to do everything in my hand to make sure there's a clear spoiler policy.

 

I don't really see how it would - otherwise we'd see that happening now, since this is really just a formalization of what's already been in place for the most part. Going purely off of observation, there isn't too much demand for spoiler-free discussion threads (GoT excepted, but that's kind of a weird case) - most folks who are big enough fans to participate in discussion threads are generally keeping abreast of events as much as possible, anyway.

 

That's what I thought... so, again, I don't understand the need for a policy thread for something that isn't really that big of an issue. I'd think the newly merged community forum mods would have more relevant things to discuss, such as confusing separate rules for senate threads, or whether it's okay to say "slut," or not.

 

We're discussing all of that. We simply "released" this because we thought it was something easy and we rapidly agreed. Too rapidly, apparently.

 

It's not okay to say slut?

 

I've been edited for saying it, but I've also seen mods say it, so I have no idea.

 

It's listed as "Not Allowed" with no qualifiers. Although I think it's probably one of those ones where direction at another user is important. Probably.

 

Like this?

 

Narc.

 

You edited me for saying "inconsiderate douche" in the same thread... on the same page, and I wasn't even directing it at anybody, butthole.

Thing is, I think it should be allowed... as long as you're not saying, "hey, I think you're a slut." It was clear that you were kidding with him, and he knew you were kidding. I think that's the distinction. I think it should be allowed in a descriptive sense, as well... like, "she was wearing a slutty outfit," or whatever. I got edited for posting that I misread Ramza's title as "Slut Manager," or something like that (I swear, that's what it looked like at first glance). lol

 

I totally didn't suspect this was a "but you edited me!" thing. Honest.

That said: back on topic. Right?

 

Also, to be fair, if that was allowed, there's a nonzero probability that would've been my title at some point.

So yeah I think that TV show time is too long. I can't see a reasonable guideline on that being more than, like, 72 hours tops.